"...WE ARE IGNORED and there is nothing more damning than being
ignored...."

Glenn, there are far worse things than being ignored; among them, not
being true to God, and not being true to oneself.

If we think we have a superior vision of the truth, we must make our
vision known. But if our witness is ignored, we have done our duty, and
the problem of making the truth known then becomes God's, not ours. "If
anyone will not ...listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet
when you leave...." Don't stay and browbeat.

Blame Martin Luther: before him, people (and RCs still) could just
consult the pope if they wanted to know how to believe what.
Protestants have put dominant emphasis on Scripture, and this has been
practically the sole unifying force among them. Now some of us are
trying to pry them loose from their rigid interpretations, and often we
aren't having much success.

Part of the problem is that, once we abandon a literal interpretation of
certain scriptures, there's no consensus on where to go. As a group we
can't offer the kind of certainty that literalists seem to require.
[Glenn Morton]

[sarcastic mode on]Gee, I thought George M. said that we could KNOW how
much historicity there is. [sarcastic mode off]

I agree with your statement. Once yec is rejected, there is little
consensus and there is no firm definitive way to KNOW what to do or how
to construct a theology that balances the need for God to reveal
something REAL with the need for us to accept what we OBSERVE.

As to leaving the field of conflict rather than fighting, that is a
certain way to lose the war. Like the French who seem to surrender
whenever faced by an army, do we want to yield the field to the YECs? I
don't. I even change a few every now and then.

By the way, being right doesn't do much good when you have lost the war.
The French were right that it was wrong for Hitler to invade them. So
what?

George wrote:

> This is the old "Argument weak here, shout like hell!" approach. I
said nothing
>about having "irrefutable" evidence or anything of the sort. I said
that there >are several approaches that can help us learn about the
value of a text as
>historical data. I didn't claim that they were infallible. But they are
certainly
> better than an approach that speaks of putting historicity into a text
and
> deciding matters based on "personal whimsy." & the charge that I'm
> "beginning to sound like a YEC" is silly. I'm not the one starting
from a
> dogmatic position that there must be some irreducible minimum of
accurate
> historical data in early Genesis.
[Glenn Morton]

Sure there are things that help us understand the historicity of the
Scripture, but there is NOTHING, save your crystal ball and your
certitude, that tells one definitively how much history there is.

I am sorry to disagree with you about the personal whimsy business. When
there is NO definitive answer that is what ALL will do because they HAVE
to. They will create a theory/hypothesis/theology which fits their
personal preconceptions because they can and because there is nothing
that can definitively rule out their position. This is no different
than what a geologist does on an oil prospect. The unofficial rule is
always, "If I can make the prospect bigger without violating the data, I
will. " Why is this done? Because they want a big prospect so that it
will get drilled. There is no definitive data to say it can't be that
big so voila, it becomes that big. Surely, you can understand this or
are you unable to understand the presuppositional nature of knowledge?

You are right, you are not starting from the assumption that there needs
to be an irreducible minimum of accurate historical data. I am. But I
like reality. I don't like being self-deluded, I don't like people
telling me I am right when I am wrong, I don't like believing false
things. Your position that Genesis doesn't need any historical data
means that you very well might be believing and teaching pure utter
nonsense. False nonsense at that. Why otherwise rational people think
it is wise to praise as 'meaningful, and significant' something that
doesn't have any reality is well beyond me. (My view of your position is
derived from the statement above in which you imply that there doesn't
have to be a minimal amount of history),

If God DIDN'T create the world, then Genesis is false and so is most of
the Bible. Why should I listen to a God who doesn't seem to know what in
the heck happened at creation, or, listen to a God who seems incapable
of transmitting anything real concerning that event? IS THAT GOD REAL?
I would say NO. But of course, you will make genesis true even though it
is false as grandpa's teeth by the means of declaring it to have deep
meaning and signficance. Which is utter hogwash. The YECs go and make
Genesis true by declaring science false. Both approaches stink. Both are
means to avoid the real problems. THey are both escapism. Your approach,
the one with no need for minimal history, seems to lead one to the
position in which no matter how absurd Genesis is, no matter what
nonsense it says (including talking snakes), It is still divinely
inspired. That is utterly Orwellian.

Rich wrote:

> Donald B Redford is published by Princeton University Press and says
Joseph is
> fiction. A lot of people get published.

I don't think you followed the point. The claim was made that the
ancients didn't take Genesis seriously. That is false. That is why I
posted ancient authors.

> Maimonides also wrote: This world will become a place where "death
ceases
> to exist, and every JEW who has ever lived is brought back to life
forever."
> 13 Principles of Faith #13.

> Doesn't include Christians, does it? Do you want to interpret that
literally as
> history? Then Christianity might as well fold up.
[Glenn Morton]

This is a nonsequitur. Let me try again. I will make it simple. The
claim was

1. the ancients didn't take Genesis literally.
2. I posted examples where they did.

3. Your response is nonsenical here.

>> Look at the Antiquities of the Jews. Flavius Josephus takes it
>> as history.

>> Flavius did not have the benefit of modern science and he
>> was not at the core of Judaism.

>> Your view that YEC is a modern view is frankly eisegetical.

> Never said it.
[Glenn Morton] It sure sounded like it. You wrote on 3/31/2005 at 7:44
pm

>Origen says genesis is facade. The kabbalists and the talmudists say it
is
>allegory. why do Christians say it is history? When did the change come
about?

Someone is writing posts with your name on them. Maybe you should check
to see who is stealing time on your computer.